Tomn wrote:Normally, I see responses in 24 hours. It seems that when aptitude was asked very serious questions unexplained by evolution, it was quite difficult to validate and defend the results of the Miller-Urey experiments.

No, it just means that everyone has realized that any attempt to reason with a creationist is futile.

if you science was proven, replicated, and observed, instead of a mass of conjectures that could change to compensate for any problem, I would be on your side. And if the theory of evolution didnt disagree with population statistics, then I would be in agreement with the theory of evolution. However, this is not. so.

The population statistics can be found in the thread "Irrefutable Evidence Against Evolution". Also, there is the earth's magnetic field there.

Its not even that its anything against you or anyone. Its that evolution cannot account for certain things, and it all just doesnt line up. You'll see what I mean by Irrefutable Evidence. Seriously consider the evidence, because what is posted there are established, well known facts that evolution does not agree with.

I will copy and paste the two arguments here:2)The Age of the Sun (Russian Sun Study and Earth's Magnetic Field)

For the theory of evolution to be possible, the sun had to have existed throughout the duration of the evolutionary time scale. Life as we know it could not have developed or exist without the sun in tow. A study was done on the sun by Russian scientists. Based on the sun's rate of nuclear fusion, the Russian scientists found the sun to be 10,000-30,000 years old.

Also supporting young age is the strength of the earth's magnetic field. Scientists have found that the magnetic field is reducing in strength at a rapid rate, with a half life of about 1,400 years. If that rate is reversed, the strength of the earth's magnetic field 20,000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star. This supports Earth's young age, as appose to evolution's over estimation.

3)Population Statistics

This science is above all the most convincing. As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2x10^89 humans in existence today. In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6900000000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies.

This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.

The other facts can be found in the thread "Irrefutable Evidence Against Evolution". You may argue the lysosome and digestive system, but otherwise, how could you get around the fact? I dont understand how yo guys continue to argue. Honestly, I want to ask: why do you guys keep arguing?

(2) Which Russian scientists? Can you post a link to the study? What have they done differently that all the other scientists have not done in order to estimate the age of the universe? Why is the age they have calculated contradictory to all evidence about the age of the planets in the solar system, including the Earth, which have been calculated using more accurate techniques?

(3) How has the population growth rate estimated? How can you conclude that this is applicable throughout history since the beginnings of Homo sapiens? How does this estimation account for events such as the Bubonic plague, and the recent spike in population growth since the Industrial Revolution?

Posting false studies which have little or no significance does not impress me.

By the way, I have been busy for the past two days or so, and I have not responded to your previous post because the answers to your questions can be found easily in a standard biology textbook.

Takeš a deep breath, think about it once again and make for yourself clear, whether you want answers or not. Nut I agree, why do we keep arguing with someone, who believes the sun is old only 40 000 years and Earth just celebrated 6000th anniversary?

Just because we think differently and most likely wont budge does not mean that we cannot debate and consider the facts in totality. This does not mean that we cannot look at each other's data and explanations and debate to find the truth after truly considering wether evolution is truly possible.

My question was not sarcastic. It was a serious question. I really wanted to know. However, if you do not wish to venture there, you do not have to.

aptitude:I posted the full piece on Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution. I will say the same thing here as I said there: I saw it 2 years on http://www.biologynews.net/ It was published in a prominent England science journal. I did not take down the link, and am unable to refer to the study. I did not mention this there, but since I am unable to procure the exact source, not that I did not read it 2 years ago and that it isnt true, I should retract that statement. I am not admitting to falsifying data, but since I am not able to procure a source, I should retract that statement.

yes I enjoyed what he said quite thoroughly. What he sais is true, and you could even visit the thread to see my testimony of being shouted out by evolutionists.

Although, I am Christian and he is Islamic, and in that we differ.

Thats more evidence for you against evolution, and the truth about their tactics.

Also, shouldn't you seek the truth rather than see everything with an evolutionist film over you eyes? The facts dont agree with evolution. You guys conjecture the impossibilities as possible, but the problem with evolution is that it has to agree with every other science: physics, chemistry, population statistics, etc, but it doesnt.

I will tell you a secret, if the population is limited in some resources, it doesn't grow. Thanks to christians there was the dark age in Europe for few centuries which pretty much limited the scientific and technological progress and caused several famines, Black Death breaks and other diseases which caused significant reduction in human population. On other continents the populations were quite stable because of limited resources.

carbon is still a problem. It is impossible for anything with a atomic number of 2 or more to form randomly. I'm sure I dont have to recount the argument.

Did you give an explanation for how this is possible? If so, I did not see it and must have missed it.

Big bang gives an explanation for how this could have happened, but by that explanation, it is quite impossible: nothing, taking itself and turning into something. It simply isnt possible for nothing to turn into something. Keep in mind that the atomic number is equal to the number of protons in a nucleus of an atom. Science has no viable answer for how 2 or more protons got into the same nucleus.

Carbon, and all elements with atomic number of 2 or more, is still a problem.

TimTruett wrote:1) Nuclear fusion does occur in nature. It happens at the center of any star. The first stars contained only hydorogen and a little helium. Nuclear fusion in stars builds up heavier elements. Nuclear fusion has been directly studied in the laboratory, so we understand it in great detail.

Large massive stars quickly fuse nuclei at a quick rate, and relatively quickly will explode as a supernova. The explosion does two things. It generates elements heavier than iron, and it disperses material out into the cosmos away from the supernova. That is, it puts heavy elements out into space.

Later, other stars and planets will form from the interstellar gas that now has heavier elements in it. Every atom of heavy elements (such as carbon, iron, gold, etc.) was formed either at the center of a star in its normal lifetime, or in its explosion as a supernova.

Fred Hoyle worked this out in detail in the 1950s.

So, it's hard for you to believe that nothing formed into something, but you believe that nothing formed everything. Quite interesting.

If you are referring to my God, let me correct you: God is not a "nothing". He is an invisible spirit, in which in his likeness is every man made.

I have explained before that there are people who have been healed by the power of Jesus, people that once had a disease and have been miraculously healed in a fashion that non-believing medical doctors cannot explain, especially because they do not know the power of God and they dont want to believe it. You dont want to believe it. Evolution has no explanation for the power of Jesus, the same power that created the universe.

You dont want to believe it? Find a viable way this universe was created. Evolution and big bang are too far stretched and are simply not possible. You know my thread Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution.

If you are referring to my God, let me correct you: God is not a "nothing". He is an invisible spirit, in which in his likeness is every man made.

So you're saying that the complicated universe was created by an even more complicated being? May I ask where this being came from?

Tomn wrote:I have explained before that there are people who have been healed by the power of Jesus, people that once had a disease and have been miraculously healed in a fashion that non-believing medical doctors cannot explain, especially because they do not know the power of God and they dont want to believe it. You dont want to believe it. Evolution has no explanation for the power of Jesus, the same power that created the universe.

What evidence is there that Jesus had these powers? Don't other holy books have their own prophets believed to have mystical powers as well: Muhammad, Krishna, Apollo, etc.? What explanation is there for their "mystical powers" that have been given to them by their own respective god(s)?

Tomn wrote:You dont want to believe it? Find a viable way this universe was created. Evolution and big bang are too far stretched and are simply not possible. You know my thread Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution.

Too far stretched? What it appears is that either you do not have enough knowledge to understand it, or you force yourself to deny it (most likely both). And yes, I do know that thread. Turns out the entire thread is a misnomer: they are not facts, they are not irrefutable, and they are not against evolution.